Operation Black Buck raid and the Avro Vulcan

[Pioneer]

G’day gents

I’ve just finished watching a documentary titled ‘Falklands Most Daring Raid’
It covers the spectacular Operation Black Buck raid on the Argentinian airfield at Port Stanley.
It truly was an amazing effort of bravado, in using a single Avro Vulcan to carry out a conventional bombing mission to put out of action the airfield, as well as deterring the Argentinian’s from basing fighters and strike aircraft there, from conducting mission from the airfield against the impending British counter attack.
This documentary really reiterates the amazing effort of logistics it took just one Vulcan to reach the Falklands. One of the biggest natural issues was the need of 15 x HP Victor bomber/tankers to get the Vulcan on target. Even then, the calculations/fuel loadings never went as planned, and the last Victor tanker and the actual Vulcan were precariously low on fuel.
One surprising note in the documentary was that no mention, no reference and no picture/footage pertained to the Vulcan’s were equipped with AGM-45 Shrike ARM’s!

My question to the forum is this-
- With the need for astonishing ‘true’ strategic range, was the Vulcan able to fly on three or even two engines safely, so as to conserve fuel? If so was this an operational practise by the RAF to obtain further range?
- I’m a little surprised that with the potential for further conflict with Argentina, that the British Government / RAF scrapped the operational Vulcan bombers, only six months after this bombing mission! Totally eliminating any true strategic-range strike capability.
In realistic terms (in terms of both $ and technology of the day!) could the Avro Vulcan’s (or at least a small number of them) been upgraded? How do you think they could have been realistically been upgraded? And probably most importantly, what was the Vulcan’s fatigue life like when scrapped? Does anyone know of or read how many more flying time they had left in them?

For me, it would have been fitting at least a flight of Vulcan’s with Paveway’s and its associated Pave Penny or Pave Spike system. This could have meant less bombs required in bomb bay (space saved, replaced with a long-range fuel tank in), better accuracy, and a safer stand-off margin!

I’m interested to get your thoughts and feed back!!

Regards
Pioneer

 

[pathology_doc]

Problem - LGB guidance pods of the day were all externally mounted (and even today the best you can do is conformal), and external mountings = significantly increased drag = reduced range (including possibly not getting to Stanley at all). Then there is the flight profile. I can't remember exactly what height the Black Buck mission released its bombs from, but I suspect it was high enough that gun and light SAM systems would be impotent.


One has to ask if the laser would maintain a tight enough beam and a bright enough return for the bombs to lock onto.


Then there is the issue of whether your hypothetical LGBs were even cleared for safe release from the Vulcan's bomb bay, how many you could carry and still avoid mutual interference, whether there's even enough room for them to sit on the racks without fouling something inside the bay, etc. etc. I agree a Vulcan makes an almost perfect flying arsenal from this POV, but only for weapons with which it has been designed or properly adapted to interface. The Shrike missions didn't come until later, and even then they were a fortuitous lash-up which IIRC was only possible because the bomber(s) in question had been provisionally wired for Skybolt twenty years previously!!!


If I were flying your hypothetical mission, it might be better to use a large TV-guided bomb (Walleye or similar) and hang it from the suspension point the Vulcan's thermonuclear armament would previously have used. Smack one of THOSE into the middle of the runway (surely not difficult) and you would have a very nice crater indeed, as big as or bigger than the one they actually got.


The issue then becomes one of relative volume and centre-of-gravity/trim considerationsas the fuel is used up and the bomb(s) released (drag induced by enforced trim changes is also the enemy of range, as you may not be able to fly at the best lift-drag ratio). Just because you have fewer bombs in the bay with lower gross weight doesn't necessarily mean you have the empty space in the right place for a long-range supplement tank. Of course if the British had persisted with Blue Boar, they would have had a 5000lb TV-guided bomb which could have improved by stages as electronics technology evolved and which would have been fully integrated with the V-bombers on both the physical and avionics levels. Smack one of THOSE into a runway halfway down its length and the owners of the runway will know they've been nudged.

 

[CJGibson]

No propaganda value in a Paveway - could have been dropped by a Harrier from a carrier. Hit Stanley with a stick of 21 bombs and there's no doubting what the message is - we can hit your bases from a long way away.

Have a listen to the recent BBC Radio 4 drama from a few weeks back, 9th January I think. Most entertaining.

Chris

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Interestingly the BLACK BUCK raids would have been much better if the RAF had the F-111K. Using the FB-111A Standard Aircraft Characteristics (SAC) in place of any such data for the F-111K indicates far less tanking would be needed. Two KC-135s should be enough. One to take it out and one to bring it back. Plus of course the F-111 could use more advanced weapons like PAVE TACK and a pair of 2,000 PAVE WAYs per mission. With one strike per night this would actually close the Stanley Airport.

 

[CJGibson]

Hmmmm...I suspect the scenario was examined by the various Staff Colleges with various types (F-111, B-52, B-1, Bear, Badger, Mirage IV) Interesting thesis project.

Chris

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The Vulcan needed 220,000 gallons of fuel to get to the Falklands and back. The F-111 would only need 22,000.

 

[Pioneer]

Some very interesting points and facts gents! Thanks that's what I'm after!
Nice in-depth response pathology_doc , that really gets me thinking.
Very interesting comparison of Vulcan / F-111 range/fuel loads! Diffidently food for thought (and pocket) when comparing the logistic size and cost of tankers in supporting both types of aircraft. I'm sure that either way the Britain must regret the failure of either TSR.2 or F-111K!
I guess that's the other critical failing of the Britain/RAF, has been its failure to deploy a specialized tanker fleet, what with the Victor's being an improvised adoption of surplus bombers, VC-10's and Lockheed L-1011. It's really amazed me, that after the likes of the Falklands War, and all the combat and support operations that Britain has committed itself, that it has only quite recently committed to the procurement of Airbus A330 Multi Role Tanker Transport (although the business terms of the program truly bewilder me -

A review of the scheme by the National Audit Office (NAO) was published in March 2010, concluding that it did not represent value for money.

I'm shocked ....... :)

Please keep your ideas and thoughts coming!!

Regards
Pioneer